This site uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some are essential to make our site work; others help us improve the user experience. By using the site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Read our privacy policy to learn more.

Latest Stories

Proving fraud proves difficult for IRS

The Tax Court determined that the IRS was time-barred from assessing
tax against the owner of several bankrupt entities for all but the
last of several years at issue. Aside from the one year for which the
taxpayer consented to extend the limitation period, the assessments
were all outside the regular three-year period, and the unlimited
limitation period for assessment did not apply because the returns
were not fraudulent. The Tax Court did, however, impose an
accuracy-related penalty for the open year, finding that the taxpayer
failed to make a good-faith effort to assess the proper tax liability.

In 1984, after defaulting on bank loans, Theodore Gould and several
entities in which he held interests filed voluntary Chapter 11
bankruptcy petitions. The bankruptcy court approved a consolidation
plan, providing, among other things, for the establishment of a
liquidating trust to which all assets of the bankruptcy estate were to
be transferred. The plan was silent, however, on the trustee’s
obligation to file tax returns or to pay taxes. To clarify this
matter, the bankruptcy court subsequently determined that the
liquidating trust was a grantor trust and not a taxable entity. On
appeal, the Supreme Court reversed this determination, holding that
the trust was not a grantor trust and that the trustee was responsible
for filing returns and paying taxes (Holywell
Corp. v. Smith, 503 U.S. 47 (1992), rev’g 911 F.2d 1539
(11th Cir. 1990), aff’g 85 B.R. 898 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 1988)). The
trustee, nonetheless, did not file timely returns for the taxpayer,
leading to an IRS examination.

After remitting more than $6 million to the IRS, the trustee of the
liquidating trust entered into a compromise and settlement agreement
that provided for an additional $10 million payment. The agreement
also stated that there would be no tax attribute carryovers available
to Gould’s bankruptcy estate. In 1998, the liquidating trust was
terminated, and the bankruptcy cases of Gould and the entities were closed.

On joint tax returns for 1995–2002, Gould reported net operating
loss (NOL) deductions, capital loss deductions, and estimated tax
payments belonging to the liquidating trust and one of the entities.
Gould claimed that he succeeded to his bankruptcy estate’s NOLs upon
its termination. But he did not report his distributive share of
income generated by one of the entities. He also did not remit any of
the estimated tax payments reported on the joint tax returns. And
while he did amend some of the returns to report self-employment tax
liabilities, he did not remit those amounts, either. The IRS
subsequently disallowed the NOL and capital loss deductions and
assessed a civil fraud penalty under Sec.
6663(a) for each year or, alternatively, an accuracy-related
penalty under Sec.
6662(a) for 2002 (for which Gould agreed to extend the limitation period).

Sec.
671 provides for grantors who are treated as the owner of a trust
to take into account all items of trust income, deduction, and credits
when computing their personal income tax. Sec.
1398(i) allows a debtor who succeeds to the property of a
bankruptcy estate upon its termination to take into account many of
the tax attributes of the estate, including NOLs and capital losses.

Sec.
6501(a) generally requires the IRS to assess any tax within three
years after a return is filed or due. One of several exceptions to the
three-year assessment period is Sec. 6501(c)(1), which provides for an
unlimited assessment period in the case of a false or fraudulent
return with the intent to evade tax. Where the issue of fraud with
intent to evade tax is raised in a noncriminal proceeding, the IRS
must show by clear and convincing evidence that the taxpayer had an
underpayment of tax and that at least some portion of the underpayment
was due to fraud.

Gould argued that, based on the bankruptcy court’s holding, the IRS
was collaterally estopped from asserting that he was not the grantor
of the liquidating trust. The Tax Court, however, rejected that
argument because of the Supreme Court’s reversal. The court then noted
that the settlement agreement expressly provided for no carryover of
tax attributes. Thus, the court determined that Gould was not entitled
to take into account the trust’s NOLs in computing his taxable income.
Additionally, the court rejected the claimed capital loss deductions
for lack of substantiation. As a result, the court sustained the IRS’s
determination that Gould had underpayments of tax for the years at issue.

The Tax Court then reviewed the “badges of fraud” factors
traditionally analyzed to determine fraudulent intent. Gould failed to
keep adequate records, and his explanation of why he claimed losses
but did not report income from one of the entities strongly indicated
his intent to evade tax. But he cooperated with tax authorities and
disclosed on his returns the reasons for claiming credit for unpaid
taxes. Thus, the court determined that the IRS failed to clearly prove
fraudulent intent. The unlimited assessment statute consequently did
not apply, and the IRS’s determinations for 1995–2001 were time-barred.

For 2002, the open year, the court upheld the IRS’s disallowance of
claimed NOL and capital loss deductions. It also found that Gould was
not entitled to credit for payments made to the IRS by the liquidating
trust. Last, the court determined that the accuracy-related penalty
was applicable because Gould failed to prove that he had acted with
reasonable cause in claiming the disallowed deductions or that he had
a reasonable basis for his reporting positions.